wayne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2010 11:38 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

wayne wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

NAACP wrote:

"Relevance" comes down to nothing more than individual perspective. You can't say as one Be-ing whether something is relevant or not as someone else might think differently.


So, suppose that I say that I wonder whether the Sun rises in the east, or in the west, and someone answers, "well, I like vanilla ice-cream better than chocolate ice-cream". If he thinks that is relevant, he had better show me how it is relevant. After all it doesn't follow that because he thinks it is relevant that it is relevant. Maybe it is. But isn't it up to him to show it is? It isn't just because he thinks it is relevant that it is relevant. Although, he might be able to show that his liking vanilla better than chocolate is relevant to in which direction the Sun rises, it is up to him to show it is. His thinking that it is relevant doesn't mean it is any more than thinking that anything is true means it is true.


We all have those strange episodes of personal relevance from time to time.
Suppose that I am in the habit of eating vanilla ice cream each day at sunrise, and much enjoy chocolate ice cream at sunset. Perhaps such a response would seem relevant to my mind at first thought, however, if I were to think further I might think differently as to the relevance to others.



In the case you give, there is some reason to think your liking vanilla is relevant. But it is not just because you think it is relevant that it is relevant that it is relevant, is it? That's the point. The OP said that there is no argument about what is relevant and what is not, because if someone thinks it something is relevant that is enough to make it relevant. But that is false. The person needs (as you point out) to give some reason for thinking that why he believes is relevant is relevant (and then, that reason can be examined). It is not simply because he thinks it relevant that it is relevant. Right?


I can agree with that .
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2010 12:05 pm
@wayne,
wayne wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

wayne wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

NAACP wrote:

"Relevance" comes down to nothing more than individual perspective. You can't say as one Be-ing whether something is relevant or not as someone else might think differently.


So, suppose that I say that I wonder whether the Sun rises in the east, or in the west, and someone answers, "well, I like vanilla ice-cream better than chocolate ice-cream". If he thinks that is relevant, he had better show me how it is relevant. After all it doesn't follow that because he thinks it is relevant that it is relevant. Maybe it is. But isn't it up to him to show it is? It isn't just because he thinks it is relevant that it is relevant. Although, he might be able to show that his liking vanilla better than chocolate is relevant to in which direction the Sun rises, it is up to him to show it is. His thinking that it is relevant doesn't mean it is any more than thinking that anything is true means it is true.


We all have those strange episodes of personal relevance from time to time.
Suppose that I am in the habit of eating vanilla ice cream each day at sunrise, and much enjoy chocolate ice cream at sunset. Perhaps such a response would seem relevant to my mind at first thought, however, if I were to think further I might think differently as to the relevance to others.



In the case you give, there is some reason to think your liking vanilla is relevant. But it is not just because you think it is relevant that it is relevant that it is relevant, is it? That's the point. The OP said that there is no argument about what is relevant and what is not, because if someone thinks it something is relevant that is enough to make it relevant. But that is false. The person needs (as you point out) to give some reason for thinking that why he believes is relevant is relevant (and then, that reason can be examined). It is not simply because he thinks it relevant that it is relevant. Right?


I can agree with that .


Yes. What would there be to disagree with? Believing something is relevant is one thing, but its being relevant is quite another thing. Why conflate them? So this:

"Relevance" comes down to nothing more than individual perspective. You can't say as one Be-ing whether something is relevant or not as someone else might think differently.

is just wrong., since only whether someone thinks something is relevant or not is clearly irrelevant to whether it really is relevant or not. An I don't just think that. I gave an excellent reason for thinking that.
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2010 01:33 pm
@kennethamy,
"Relevance" comes down to nothing more than individual perspective. You can't say as one Be-ing whether something is relevant or not as someone else might think differently."

Leaving off the first sentence, the second, at least appears true to me. We must, as you say, give reason to the relevance.
Actually, I don't think the two statements work together.
I think the first is false, the second appears true.

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2010 01:44 pm
If an event establishes several different functions in relation to several different observers then naturally relevance will justifiably vary...
(thereĀ“s no need to say any more then this...)
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2010 09:29 pm
@wayne,
wayne wrote:

"Relevance" comes down to nothing more than individual perspective. You can't say as one Be-ing whether something is relevant or not as someone else might think differently."

Leaving off the first sentence, the second, at least appears true to me. We must, as you say, give reason to the relevance.
Actually, I don't think the two statements work together.
I think the first is false, the second appears true.
If an anarchist doesn't see relevance in laws, morals and ethics, doesn't mean it has no relevance, just because he's too shortsighted/stupid/ignorent.

But yes, we must promote and argue for the relevance of things, which often appears subjective/relative.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2010 09:43 pm
To say that the relevance of an event is relative to its functionality is not to say that a specific functionality is itself relative, although of course for lesser spirits it might be misunderstood just that way...oh well...laissez faire, laissez dire... Laughing
0 Replies
 
existential potential
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 02:29 pm
@HexHammer,
NAACP may have some kind of point, maybe- If all we humans ever know if life, then in some sense life can be said to be "infinite". the only experience we ever have is of life itself, we have no other experience, only experience within life, and so life can be said to be "infinite" in a subjective sense, although this does sound slightly odd.

whether we can be said to be the being from birth to death is contentious though; what constitutes being the same being throughout our lives? psychologically we are quite changeable, and even biologically we change over time, we digest food, of which part of that "becomes a part of us" is a sense, and so our being isn't fixed, neither psychologcially or biologically.
kennethamy
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 03:48 pm
@existential potential,
existential potential wrote:

NAACP may have some kind of point, maybe- If all we humans ever know if life, then in some sense life can be said to be "infinite". the only experience we ever have is of life itself, we have no other experience, only experience within life, and so life can be said to be "infinite" in a subjective sense, although this does sound slightly odd.

whether we can be said to be the being from birth to death is contentious though; what constitutes being the same being throughout our lives? psychologically we are quite changeable, and even biologically we change over time, we digest food, of which part of that "becomes a part of us" is a sense, and so our being isn't fixed, neither psychologcially or biologically.


If all we humans ever know if life, then in some sense life can be said to be "infinite". the only experience we ever have is of life itself, we have no other experience, only experience within life, and so life can be said to be "infinite" in a subjective sense, although this does sound slightly odd.

Not just odd. "Nonsensical" is the word I think you are looking for.
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 04:01 pm
@existential potential,
existential potential wrote:

NAACP may have some kind of point, maybe- If all we humans ever know if life, then in some sense life can be said to be "infinite". the only experience we ever have is of life itself, we have no other experience, only experience within life, and so life can be said to be "infinite" in a subjective sense, although this does sound slightly odd.

whether we can be said to be the being from birth to death is contentious though; what constitutes being the same being throughout our lives? psychologically we are quite changeable, and even biologically we change over time, we digest food, of which part of that "becomes a part of us" is a sense, and so our being isn't fixed, neither psychologcially or biologically.
I see you like many other philosophers likes to lose themselves in beautiful nonsens.
existential potential
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 05:21 pm
@HexHammer,
Fine, but the second part of what I said is at least reasonable.
0 Replies
 
existential potential
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 05:55 pm
@HexHammer,
you say that, disregarding the fact that I pointed out, which was that our being is not fiexed, but changeable throughout our lives, psychologically and inevitably biologically. so rather than simply negating that point with some superficial comment, you might like to consider it, for just a moment.
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 06:34 pm
@existential potential,
Tbh I lost sight of the initial thing you have based this aftermath of a discussion upon, please quote it, or better ..make a new topic about it, and let's discuss it there.

Please link that I may find it and catch up on the discussion there.
existential potential
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 06:38 pm
@HexHammer,
yes, good idea.
0 Replies
 
existential potential
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 06:59 pm
@HexHammer,
http://able2know.org/topic/164792-1#post-4431571
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Overthinking.
  3. » Page 6
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/26/2022 at 11:25:10